Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment (debunked)

Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment

From the event's website: "The gathering will be attended by over
1,000 community members, clergy, community leaders and public officials
of all persuasions who continue to reject the messages of hate and
Islamaphobia that have escalated in recent months and years, most
recently with the production of the infamous film 'Innocence of
Muslims.' " Photo Credit:Facebook

Led by a newspaper publisher, Muslim activists will call for putting
limits on American free speech at a Dearborn rally this evening. You
can't make this stuff up.

Nearly a decade after Dearborn's streets celebrated America for bringing
down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the
same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech.
Protesting the film, "Innocence of Muslims," that has sparked protests
in the Mideast, rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called
blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the
religious feelings of Muslims."

This assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed
is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American
activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and
state in the American Constitution.

I am trying to understand why we have to worry about hate speech causing others to act violent. To the people speaking of this, are you worried that if we leave hate speech, those who use it will escalate it to violence? Or are you concerned about the violent responses?

Both. I think when you hear an excessive amount of negativity about a group. then people are more likely to take it to the next level and attack that group whether it be verbally on the streets or their places of worship. I think you can also have a situation like the kid that snaps after repeatedly being bullied. I think if someone is constantly told how evil they are then they are more likely to navigate towards extremism.

This is not a reason to chill free speech, even hate speech. The First Amendment was created to protect offensive speech; non-offensive speech needs no such protections, furthermore, the chill effect can extend beyond the issue at hand. Who gets to decide when it goes over the line?

We have laws in this country against acting out violently.

How do you get people to not tell others they are evil? What legislation would you like to enforce such a thing?

Both. I think when you hear an excessive amount of negativity about a group. then people are more likely to take it to the next level and attack that group whether it be verbally on the streets or their places of worship. I think you can also have a situation like the kid that snaps after repeatedly being bullied. I think if someone is constantly told how evil they are then they are more likely to navigate towards extremism.

This is not a reason to chill free speech, even hate speech. The First Amendment was created to protect offensive speech; non-offensive speech needs no such protections, furthermore, the chill effect can extend beyond the issue at hand. Who gets to decide when it goes over the line?

We have laws in this country against acting out violently.

How do you get people to not tell others they are evil? What legislation would you like to enforce such a thing?

If you noticed my comment above, I don't say anything about chilling free speech. I said that some positive things need to be said to counteract all the negative. The main purpose of this rally was to try and bring all faiths to get along. To try and discuss how to stop some of the violence against Muslims is increasing and people want to focus on one line one person may or may not have said and ignore all the positives this rally was suppose to be about.

The mosque that was set on fire on Sunday was less than 2 hours away from Dearborn where this rally for peace took place. As some point, people have to decide if they want to constantly focus on the negative Muslims or actually talk about the positive things about them and maybe try and help them. People can actually talk about how dumb extremists are and also talk positively about good Muslims.

Both. I think when you hear an excessive amount of negativity about a group. then people are more likely to take it to the next level and attack that group whether it be verbally on the streets or their places of worship. I think you can also have a situation like the kid that snaps after repeatedly being bullied. I think if someone is constantly told how evil they are then they are more likely to navigate towards extremism.

This is not a reason to chill free speech, even hate speech. The First Amendment was created to protect offensive speech; non-offensive speech needs no such protections, furthermore, the chill effect can extend beyond the issue at hand. Who gets to decide when it goes over the line?

We have laws in this country against acting out violently.

How do you get people to not tell others they are evil? What legislation would you like to enforce such a thing?

If you noticed my comment above, I don't say anything about chilling free speech. I said that some positive things need to be said to counteract all the negative. The main purpose of this rally was to try and bring all faiths to get along. To try and discuss how to stop some of the violence against Muslims is increasing and people want to focus on one line one person may or may not have said and ignore all the positives this rally was suppose to be about.

The mosque that was set on fire on Sunday was less than 2 hours away from Dearborn where this rally for peace took place. As some point, people have to decide if they want to constantly focus on the negative Muslims or actually talk about the positive things about them and maybe try and help them. People can actually talk about how dumb extremists are and also talk positively about good Muslims.

I am not speaking in specific about this particular rally, or if it was or wasn't a rally, or if it was or wasn't against First Amendment freedoms.

It is clear, from what I can see, in at least some of the comments that were said at the event, plus from some in this thread, that there is a belief that free speech that includes allowances for people to say hateful and hurtful things about someone's religion or prophet, is the catalyst for violence.

Free speech is just that, free speech. Hateful or offensive speech, in part because it lives so much in the eye (and ear) of the beholder, must be protected, and is so by the Constitution. I always look towards the slippery slope that says if we allow ANY chill on this most cherished freedom, it can devolve into not being able to speak freely against government.

It is always wonderful for people to gather and speak of positivity. It is great to have counterbalance in the world, and certainly, if I was in a group that people were saying terrible things about, I would be speaking out to counter those words.

But we cannot blame people who speak hatefully for the violence others do because they don't like what someone has said.

We CAN blame hateful speakers for taking it to another level of violence, same as those who react violently to speech.

I'll tell you what, I'm not so much irritated as disgusted at the blatant bigotry being excused on this board these past couple of weeks. I've seen you dissect an anti-Obama bullshit story in a heartbeat, yet this is beyond you, huh. Jihad means terrorism! Muslims are savages, animals, blow them into a parking lot! They beat their women and rape their kids! Sharia means stoning! And God help any poor muslimah on this thread who has the nerve to provide actual accepted definitions of these words that are being used against her. Ignored or told to get over it, her explanations denied like she is ignorant of the religion she practices. Every violent protester is the prime example of Islam, the other billion and a half Muslims apparently don't exist. Peace rally=anti-free speech, meanwhile lectures abound from people swearing that Muslims aren't speaking out.

Meanwhile other people are whining about Piss Christ and Bill Maher. Pure ignorance about society, about anything beyond their own tiny, pinpoint of a world where Fox and Breitbart are king, 'Merica can do no wrong, and free speech is only the speech they agree with.

Irritated is not the word.

Quoting futureshock:

Quoting stacymomof2:

Yes, futureshock. Notice the quotes are around "the religious feelings of Muslims" and not "blasphemy laws are necessary." Who knows what the guy actually said. So Sean Hannity took some article from Breitbart and hyped it up? Color me shocked. But don't color me convinced.

This comes from Breitbart. Do you only like them when they talk smack about muslims, or are you a fan of Breitbart? Funny you seem to disagree with them at other times, but when they talk about Muslims they are all good, huh?

Quoting futureshock:

Quoting stacymomof2:

Because all the articles that are saying it are from one source and just copy the same article. Someone posted an article from the Arab newspaper that explained what the ralley (not really a protest but a meeting at a mosque) was about, it never mentioned free speech. I myself lined the facebook event page, nothing about free speech in there. None of the posters or event pages linked to the actual event say anything about blaspemy laws, they only talk about condemning violence.

No valid source has been shown to say anything about free speech laws. A Muslim woman from the Dearborn area said the event was exactly as presented in the posters and facebook page, that it had speakers from other faiths and was a rally to support anti-violence and anti-islamophobia. The only source for anything about free speech was a partial quote from a biased source that didn't actually say anything about free speech laws.

This seems to have stemmed from Breitbart and Sean Hannity, both of whom are known to misquote and make stuff up.

It wasn't even a protest of the anti-Islam movie, it was people gathering to talk against violence and extremism. Just like their event page, posters, and attendees said it was.

Quoting Moniker:

I'm sorry if I missed it but how did we come to the conclusion that this article was a hoax or a complete misrepresentation? I found several different articles all saying it was about free speech. If it's been debunked that's great but I'm wondering how anyone came to that conclusion?

The
only source for anything about free speech was a partial quote from a
biased source that didn't actually say anything about free speech laws.

Is this the quote you are claiming has nothing to do with free speech?

rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called
blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the
religious feelings of Muslims."

There is no need to get so irritated. I am just trying to clarify the story.

I really like and respect you so I am going to be brutally honest with you.

I am very sorry for making you feel angry, that was never my intention.

Here are my issues with this topic:

Jihad
means terrorism!

Terrorists who are Muslim are the ones who frequently use this word, Jihad. They mean it in a way that represents:

ji·had

noun

1. aholywarundertakenasasacreddutybyMuslims.

For you to claim that it ONLY means a personal struggle (paraphrasing) is disingenuous at best.

Muslims are savages, animals, blow them into a
parking lot!

I have never, ever said ALL Muslims are savages. However, some Muslims do blow up innocent people. You may claim that they are not "really Muslims" but THEY think they are. They are interpreting your Quran differently than you are, but it is the same book nonetheless. I think it is dishonest to try to claim they are not following Islam just because they are following it in a radically different way than you are following it.

They beat their women and rape their kids!

Are you trying to say that women do not get beaten in many Muslim countries for showing ankles, going to school, getting raped, etc., etc.? Trying to claim that this does not happen is another example of being less than honest. You are trying to deny reality. Many of us have seen or read of instances of this happening. No one has ever said ALL Muslim men beat women.

I have never seen anyone claim they rape their children, but I am sure you were just using that as hyperbole.

Sharia means
stoning!

No one has ever said Sharia means ONLY stoning, but for you to claim that Sharia does NOT EVER include stoning is, again, disingenuous.

And God help any poor muslimah
on this thread who has the nerve to provide actual accepted definitions
of these words that are being used against her.

That is just it, you are NOT providing all of the accepted definitions of these words, only those accepted by YOU and the Muslims YOU associate with. See above.

Ignored or told to get
over it, her explanations denied like she is ignorant of the religion
she practices.

See above.

Every violent protester is the prime example of Islam,
the other billion and a half Muslims apparently don't exist.

If you noticed my comment above, I don't say anything about chilling free speech. I said that some positive things need to be said to counteract all the negative. The main purpose of this rally was to try and bring all faiths to get along. To try and discuss how to stop some of the violence against Muslims is increasing and people want to focus on one line one person may or may not have said and ignore all the positives this rally was suppose to be about.

The mosque that was set on fire on Sunday was less than 2 hours away from Dearborn where this rally for peace took place. As some point, people have to decide if they want to constantly focus on the negative Muslims or actually talk about the positive things about them and maybe try and help them. People can actually talk about how dumb extremists are and also talk positively about good Muslims.

I am not speaking in specific about this particular rally, or if it was or wasn't a rally, or if it was or wasn't against First Amendment freedoms.

It is clear, from what I can see, in at least some of the comments that were said at the event, plus from some in this thread, that there is a belief that free speech that includes allowances for people to say hateful and hurtful things about someone's religion or prophet, is the catalyst for violence.

Free speech is just that, free speech. Hateful or offensive speech, in part because it lives so much in the eye (and ear) of the beholder, must be protected, and is so by the Constitution. I always look towards the slippery slope that says if we allow ANY chill on this most cherished freedom, it can devolve into not being able to speak freely against government.

It is always wonderful for people to gather and speak of positivity. It is great to have counterbalance in the world, and certainly, if I was in a group that people were saying terrible things about, I would be speaking out to counter those words.

But we cannot blame people who speak hatefully for the violence others do because they don't like what someone has said.

We CAN blame hateful speakers for taking it to another level of violence, same as those who react violently to speech.

I completely agree with the part in purple. I am just frustrated right now and I know part is because that mosque that was set on fire is less than 30 minutes from my house and I probably go by it once a week. I think as a society, there is some responsibility that comes with free speech to make sure both sides are heard because what's the point of free speech if you only hear one side? Isn't one of the greatest things about it is you do get to hear different point of views and I know sometimes I actually benefit more from hearing the extreme view point. It often make me reevaluate my point of view.

There should be a much bigger conversation happening right now. I mentioned it earlier on how extremism isn't just increasing amonst Muslims but world wide. The Golden Dawn Party is in increasing in Greece.There was a Hindu Pujari was talking about wanting to decapitate Muslims. China is having protests against Japan and Japan is protesting against China. Tensions are increasing world wide and we're being lazy and just blaming Muslims and talking about any protest they have instead of looking at the bigger picture.

If you noticed my comment above, I don't say anything about chilling free speech. I said that some positive things need to be said to counteract all the negative. The main purpose of this rally was to try and bring all faiths to get along. To try and discuss how to stop some of the violence against Muslims is increasing and people want to focus on one line one person may or may not have said and ignore all the positives this rally was suppose to be about.

The mosque that was set on fire on Sunday was less than 2 hours away from Dearborn where this rally for peace took place. As some point, people have to decide if they want to constantly focus on the negative Muslims or actually talk about the positive things about them and maybe try and help them. People can actually talk about how dumb extremists are and also talk positively about good Muslims.

I am not speaking in specific about this particular rally, or if it was or wasn't a rally, or if it was or wasn't against First Amendment freedoms.

It is clear, from what I can see, in at least some of the comments that were said at the event, plus from some in this thread, that there is a belief that free speech that includes allowances for people to say hateful and hurtful things about someone's religion or prophet, is the catalyst for violence.

Free speech is just that, free speech. Hateful or offensive speech, in part because it lives so much in the eye (and ear) of the beholder, must be protected, and is so by the Constitution. I always look towards the slippery slope that says if we allow ANY chill on this most cherished freedom, it can devolve into not being able to speak freely against government.

It is always wonderful for people to gather and speak of positivity. It is great to have counterbalance in the world, and certainly, if I was in a group that people were saying terrible things about, I would be speaking out to counter those words.

But we cannot blame people who speak hatefully for the violence others do because they don't like what someone has said.

We CAN blame hateful speakers for taking it to another level of violence, same as those who react violently to speech.

I completely agree with the part in purple. I am just frustrated right now and I know part is because that mosque that was set on fire is less than 30 minutes from my house and I probably go by it once a week. I think as a society, there is some responsibility that comes with free speech to make sure both sides are heard because what's the point of free speech if you only hear one side? Isn't one of the greatest things about it is you do get to hear different point of views and I know sometimes I actually benefit more from hearing the extreme view point. It often make me reevaluate my point of view.

There should be a much bigger conversation happening right now. I mentioned it earlier on how extremism isn't just increasing amonst Muslims but world wide. The Golden Dawn Party is in increasing in Greece.There was a Hindu Pujari was talking about wanting to decapitate Muslims. China is having protests against Japan and Japan is protesting against China. Tensions are increasing world wide and we're being lay and just blaming Muslims and talking about any protest they have instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Sorry, I'm kind of ranting a bit here.

Burning down a mosque is an act of vandalism and destruction and puts people's lives at risk. Those who engage in such acts should be hunted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I am not anti-Muslim.

Frankly, because I am without religion, ALL of the extremism from EVERY faction scares the crap out of me, and I find it hard to summon sympathy when everyone wants "their" way to be "the" way.

America's laws are for Americans, and part of the problem is that our free speech extends beyond our borders and into places that do not share our values. That is a problem, and that is disturbing, but I don't want to see it used as a springboard for chilling one of our most important freedoms.

I'm not sure if anyone else posted this, but it is an article about the rally in the OP from the newspaper published by the organizer of the rally in the OP:

Quote:

Unified rally at Dearborn Civic Center attacts over 1,000

Samer Hijazi

Monday, 10.01.2012, 05:05pm

DEARBORN-A message was heard loud and clear on Friday evening in Dearborn where a community rally standing up against violence and hate was held at the city's Civic Center located on Michigan Ave., where over 1,000 locals turned out to support the condemning of hate speech, while also defending the prophets of Islam.

The event included speeches from several local and religious leaders, who all supported a unified message as a community in response to the recent attacks against the religion of Islam, which intensified over the last several weeks due to an ant-Islamic video that caused worldwide uproar. The event started with a message from Osama Siblani, publisher of The Arab American News, who told the packed venue filled with adults and children that despite the intimidation that might have led the Muslim community into silence, he was stunned to see the community turn out to this particular event.

"When you were called to duty to come and stand up for prophet Muhammad and all the messengers of God, you said 'when and where' and now you are all here today. They keep dividing us into Sunni and Shia, but today all of us stand here more importantly as Muslims, more importantly as Americans and more importantly as human beings to condemn the violence, the hate, the extremism, the terrorism, and the attack on our prophet," Siblani told the crowd.

The crowd included both women and men of all ages as well as children and teenagers, many of whom held signs that displayed their love for the profit and denounced all forms of hate speech. Some of the signs in the audience included one's that read "we love prophet Muhammad" and "stand up against hate." Religious leaders from local mosque's were also present at the event, some of them taking the podium to address the crowd in both English and Arabic.

"I want to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to come here and raise your voice in condemning the filthy movie that degrades our holy prophet in such a horrible way. We are gathering here to say that we as Muslims and all Muslims around the world do not accept this kind of bigotry, and this kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.

Attorney Tarek Beydoun, who was one of the head organizers of the event also got the crowd in attendance involved through social media, telling the crowd to take a picture of the packed room and use their twitter accounts along with the hash-tag "stopthehate" to spread the message to the entire world.

Other representation at the event included members from the Michigan Emergency Committee Against War and Injustice, the NAACP and CAIR-MI. Also present at the event was Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly and Judge Richard Halloran from the Wayne County Circuit Court.

So we have the event organizer speaking on limiting the First Amendment, and a speaker at the rally doing so as well. The gist of the OP was correct, in that atleast one of the themes of the rally was to speak against the First Amendment. It is not debunked.

The newspaper also prints its official opinion on the subject, entitled, "Government must join us in efforts to stop hate," and it calls on the government and Congress to lead the way. LINK

If only they denounced the murders committed by other Muslims over this movie as vociferously.

"The government and Congress must lead this effort. Only when our leaders stand with us to stop the hate will the hate stop. Only then will we realize God's plan for us." LINK

I see no reference in this link to abridging free speech. This is what the quote is referring to:

Nowhere is this culture of evil more evident than in the raging Islamophobia sweeping the country. Day after day, week after week, Muslims and Sikhs are being harrased, their homes, cars and institutions ravaged, their lives taken, their family members hurt. They are being fired from their jobs for praying, forced to eat food their religion prohibits and dress in a way they find immodest. They watch on TV their countries of origin go up in flames and their religion of birth being maligned. This is the American dream gone badly wrong.

He is asking that the government support Muslims against harrassment and violence.

So we have the event organizer speaking on limiting the First Amendment, and a speaker at the rally doing so as well. The gist of the OP was correct, in that atleast one of the themes of the rally was to speak against the First Amendment. It is not debunked.

The newspaper also prints its official opinion on the subject, entitled, "Government must join us in efforts to stop hate," and it calls on the government and Congress to lead the way. LINK

If only they denounced the murders committed by other Muslims over this movie as vociferously.

How do you know they didn't? It's hard to even find online why this rally even occured or what it was called. Would most sites even print if Muslims were talking against the violence Muslims in the Middle East have commited over this movie?

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.